Search

Gastroparesis, which can be viewed as a syndrome featuring nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain, and associated other symptoms and findings, is increasingly seen by surgeons. Gastroparesis is associated with a number of gastrointestinal anatomic and physiologic findings. This article reviews the use of bioelectric therapy of neuromodulation, via gastric electrical stimulation, for patients with drug refractory gastroparesis syndromes including surgical aspects of device placement and subsequent management. In addition to an overall approach to the placement and subsequent management of gastric electrical stimulation devices, several newer concepts are discussed. The role of pyloric dysfunction in gastroparesis is also discussed including how stimulation devices and pyloric therapies may be used in concert. The additions of full-thickness gastrointestinal biopsies along with other physiologic, including GI electrophysiology, as well as some serologic measures, are also discussed. In addition, evolving approaches and emerging technologies for bioelectric neuromodulation of the gastrointestinal tract are introduced. Gastroparesis syndromes can be approached in a systematic manner based on known pathophysiology and when indicated can be helped with surgical therapies including neuromodulation.

The impact of lymph node (LN) status and lymphadenectomy (LA) on survival in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) remains controversial. We evaluated the impact of tumor extension and grade on nodal metastasis and survival. Surgical pNET patients were queried in the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database (1998–2012, N = 981). Factors associated with LN status were analyzed by logistic regression and by Cox analyses. For T1–T2 tumors, N status was associated only with tumor size. N status (p = 0.001), grade (p

The Puestow procedure, also called lateral pancreaticojejunostomy, has been the mainstay of surgical therapy for dilated duct chronic pancreatitis for decades. Principles that Puestow and Gillesby described in 1958 are pertinent to the modern conduct of this operation that is described with current practice guidelines.

In selected patients with chronic pancreatitis, total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation can be effective for the treatment of intractable pain while ameliorating postoperative diabetes. Improved quality of life scores and decreased daily narcotic use, as indicators of successful pain relief, are expected after total pancreatectomy. These outcomes and their relationship have not been well examined in this patient group. A prospectively collected database of patients undergoing extensive pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation for pancreatitis was reviewed. Data pertaining to daily oral morphine equivalents (MEs) and quality of life (QOL), as measured by the SF-12 questionnaire, in the preoperative and postoperative period were reviewed. Approval from the IRB for the evaluation of human subjects was obtained. Over a 20-month period, 33 patients (25 women, median age 42) underwent extensive pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation for pancreatitis. Mean follow-up was 9 months with a range of 6–12 months. Postoperative complications occurred in 16 patients (48%). Preoperative QOL scores were a mean 25 for physical component and 32 for mental health component. Postoperatively, physical component scores averaged 33 at 6 months (p = 0.025) and 36 at 12 months (mean increase of 11); the mental health component scores averaged 43 at 6 months (p = 0.007) and 44 at 12 months (mean increase of 12). Preoperative MEs averaged 357 mg daily. At discharge from the hospital, this number increased to 536 mg average MEs daily, a 50% increase, as expected after major surgery in the chronic pain patient. At 6 months, 15 out of 31 patients (48%) required less daily MEs than preoperatively and averaged 161 mg daily (−55%). By 12 months, 11 out of 17 patients (65%) required less daily MEs than preoperatively and averaged 128 mg daily (−64%); four were narcotic-free (23%). Of the six patients who did not decrease their analgesic requirements at 1 year, five (83%) still had an improved physical QOL score (one patient was unchanged) and all six had an improved mental health QOL. Total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplant is an effective surgery for end-stage chronic pancreatitis. Quality of life improves early postoperatively while decreased narcotic analgesia requirements occur later. Both improved quality of life and decreased narcotic analgesia requirements continue to occur at least up to 1 year postoperatively. Further investigation is needed to assess the durability of total pancreatectomy with islet autotransplantation for severe chronic pancreatitis with respect to pain relief and improved quality of life.

Damage control laparotomy (DCL) has been a major advance in modern trauma care. The principles of damage control which include truncation of operation to correct acidosis, hypothermia, and coagulopathy with subsequent planned definitive repair are applicable in managing patients undergoing abdominal operations. In order to define indications, technique, and outcome, we undertook a retrospective review and analysis of pancreatic surgery patients in whom DCL was utilized.In a cohort of 835 patients who underwent elective pancreatic operations at the Medical University of South Carolina from 2001 to 2007, eight patients were identified who required DCL. Under Institutional Review Board approval, records were reviewed to define intraoperative blood loss, acidosis, hypothermia, coagulopathy, operative techniques, timing of definitive operation, and hospital outcome.There were five men and three women with a mean age of 51 years. The diagnosis was chronic pancreatitis in seven patients and cancer in one. The index operation was pancreatoduodenectomy in four patients, distal pancreatectomy in three, and total pancreatectomy in one. In four patients undergoing elective pancreatic resection intraoperative portal vein hemorrhage initiated damage control laparotomy. Four patients had damage control utilized at reoperation for abdominal sepsis (two) and hemorrhage (two). DCL techniques included external tube drainage (eight), abdominal packing (seven), staple closure of open bowel (four), and rapid abdominal closure (four). Operative blood loss ranged from 300 to 12,000 cc. Operative transfusions ranged from 0 to 44 U of packed red cells. Intraoperative INR was greater than 1.5 in four patients, pH ranged from 7.08 to 7.45, and temperature ranged from 34.8 to 38.8 degrees C. Laparotomy for pack removal and intestinal reconstruction was undertaken 1 to 7 days after DCL. Length of hospital stay ranged from 7 to 80 days. Hospital mortality was zero.Patients with exsanguinating hemorrhage and severe sepsis related to pancreatic surgery can be successfully managed with principles of DCL. Truncation of operation with abdominal packing, bowel closure, external drainage of bile and pancreatic ducts, and rapid abdominal closure with planned subsequent completion laparotomy should be considered in pancreatic operations when patients risk intraoperative acidosis, hypothermia, and coagulopathy due to sepsis or hemorrhage.

We appreciate your excellent commentary on damage control surgery and particularly the appropriate acknowledgement of the icons of modern trauma surgery. The magnitude of your experience with acute pancreatitis at Indiana is as always impressive. This large volume makes your descriptive data an important contribution to the accurate understanding of this challenging disease. Certainly, much can be learned from your conduct in the management of these ill patients. It is notable that we excluded patients undergoing laparostomy or debridement for severe acute pancreatitis with necrosis from our report on elective pancreas surgery. The inflammatory process is a likely contributor to the physiologic derangements surrounding perioperative events. Presumably, patients with necrotizing pancreatitis are a sicker subgroup of pancreas surgery patients. The trauma literature is robust with helpful guidelines for the institution of damage control surgery, given the large numbers of evaluable patients. The criteria for application of damage control in the previously healthy trauma warrior, however, are potentially quite different from the criteria for its optimal use in a patient with catastrophe while undergoing elective pancreatic surgery, with the attendant metabolic disadvantage of chronic illness (cancer or pancreatitis) and the resultant limited physiologic reserve. Therefore, the appropriate parameters for applying damage control in the pancreas surgery patient are currently uncertain, and the judgment of the experienced pancreatic surgeon remains important. We reported pH as a marker of acidosis. The median base deficit in our series was 11.1 (range 0.4 to 16.6). The interval to abdominal closure in those patients who achieved it was a median of 3 days (range 1 to 3 days). Patient #7 was relegated to damage control due to intraoperative coagulopathy from sepsis. Patient #8 underwent damage control as a result of intraoperative acidosis and coagulopathy also due to sepsis. We greatly appreciate your thoughtful comments and common interest in taking optimal care of the pancreas surgery patient. Given the relatively rare need for damage control in elective pancreas surgery, perhaps more experience or more likely a collaborative effort could help to more precisely define the role of damage control.